Atheist evolutionary scientist convinced by the evidence

[zolace]

The man clearly was well immersed into atheistic, evolutionary thinking - but in time, it was the evidence that changed his thinking.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/frantisek-vyskocil

Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil of Charles University in Prague is internationally known for his path-breaking neurophysiology research. Once an atheist, God opened his eyes through his scientific research so that he now firmly believes in intelligent design and a Creator God.

[Rigon]

Changed his mind based on evidence.....none of which was presented. ....except the same old argument by creationists that the existence of similar genes and systems in lower and higher forms must be evidence of a creator and not evolution because God must have created the same system for everyone (that's not evidence by the way...its called storytelling). .....and mutation alone cant be enough (which we already knew long ago).     He published lots of papers...none of which also were on evidence against evolution. or for creation.

[Balthazar]

Does God believe in God?
Does he have any religious motives, or he acts in accordance with logic only?
If he has some kind of religious motivation, then what denomination he adheres to?

 

[RodeoX]

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What evidence?

EDIT: Oh I see he is NOT an evolutionary biologist. He's a doctor with no training in evolutionary biology.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/František_Vyskočil

[sana8410]

He is attempting to use science to justify his new beliefs.   That's not science.  Its a creationist approach.
This guy is no different. See this quote below


Also, instead of unfairly attributing the amazing designs manifest in creation to blind chance, I and not a few other scientists ask ourselves, ‘How did God design this?’
   
This isn't science. He has already concluded that God designed it and attempts to explain it with in reverse with science. That is NOT how science works. This is nothing new for alleged Christian "Scientists".

[lemfuture]

not the first scientist i've heard

[RappelzReborn]

I'am a Muslim.
and I don't see why would someone think that there is no "GOD"
If there isn't .. who made us & made this planet ? it's that simple  

[zolace]

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What evidence?

Another atheist scientist discusses his journey.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/26/confessions-of-a-former-atheist

Sure, I could find sites all over the Internet that attempted to address these issues and how they didn’t disprove evolution, but what I was concerned with was the fact that they had never been brought up before. It was as if all the difficult spots in evolutionary theory had been whitewashed.

[sana8410]

Here is another stupid statement.
Vyskočil’s doubts about evolution began during the time that he was studying neuron synapses: "I was deeply impressed by the amazing complexity of these supposedly simple connections between nerve cells. ‘How,’ I wondered, ‘could synapses and the genetic programs underlying them be products of mere blind chance?’ It really made no sense (Vyskočil 2011).

This is a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary science. It is not blind chance at all.  How can this professor evaluate evolution if he doesn't even understand what he is contemplating? This is inexcusable.

[sana8410]

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What evidence?

Another atheist scientist discusses his journey.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/26/confessions-of-a-former-atheist

Sure, I could find sites all over the Internet that attempted to address these issues and how they didn’t disprove evolution, but what I was concerned with was the fact that they had never been brought up before. It was as if all the difficult spots in evolutionary theory had been whitewashed.

You know, this complicated genetics stuff just seems so...well...complicated.    I therefore think that Genesis is a far more logical explanation.   It all just popped into existence.  So much simpler.   The evidence led me to this conclusion.   Please don't ask me to present any of this alleged evidence.

[Balthazar]

I'am a Muslim.
and I don't see why would someone think that there is no "GOD"
If there isn't .. who made us & made this planet ? it's that simple  

Because they're not satisfied by religious explanation of everything. Allah, Buddah, Jesus were unable to explain why sunlight could cause cancer, for example. Some people are different, they need real answers, but not another illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

You're welcome.

[umair127]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

[RodeoX]

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What evidence?

Another atheist scientist discusses his journey.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/08/26/confessions-of-a-former-atheist

Sure, I could find sites all over the Internet that attempted to address these issues and how they didn’t disprove evolution, but what I was concerned with was the fact that they had never been brought up before. It was as if all the difficult spots in evolutionary theory had been whitewashed.

There are difficult spots. For example the origin of life is a mystery. The worlds best biologists can not even tell you if life started on Earth. Physicists can't explain how living things stay alive. These a big questions that still have to be answered.
We may find answers to these questions eventually, but I don't think we are gong to find the answers in bronze age mythology.  

[sana8410]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You forgot the 4th fact....he failed to mention any evidence for creation.   His only evidence was that he thought it was too complicated to happen by mutation alone (same old argument).  And guess what, if he weren't 80 years old and lost to modern science, he would know he is right and there are lots of other mechanisms.

[umair127]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You forgot the 4th fact....he failed to mention any evidence for creation.   His only evidence was that he thought it was too complicated to happen by mutation alone (same old argument).  And guess what, if he weren't 80 years old and lost to modern science, he would know he is right and there are lots of other mechanisms.

An atheist can reject evolution if he/she chooses to. There are no absolutes when it comes to a person's beliefs. Beliefs are not nessasarily basic upon logic and facts. So this guy found god.

[sana8410]

I work in evolutionary science as much or more than any neurophysiologist. None of his published work was relevant to the topic of evolution. 

It boils down to this .   Just because the petabytes of data supporting Evolution is somewhat lacking in its explanation of an eye protein or some other little known neuropathic process that represents 0.000000001% of the overall evidence for evolution....does not constitute a rational to reject the other 99.999999% of the petabytes of data.  .  And it most certainly does not constitute EVIDENCE  of the biblical story.   

[umair127]

Frank has drawn a CONCLUSION, but has not presented any sound reasoning for drawing such a conclusion.

He is no different that you, who simply wishes to believe in a "creator" when there is  no evidence supporting his/your wishful thinking.

It the 800 pound gorilla in the room that you refuse to acknowledge....

[Rigon]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

[umair127]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

#3 is correct - read the article a bit more carefully (have you read the article?).What you are objecting to is not what #3 states.

[Rigon]

OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.

Now, those are facts.  You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.

You are wrong about 3.   Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution.   This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator".   It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever.    ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator.  There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists.  There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.

By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient.  He didn't learn anything new.

#3 is correct - read the article a bit more carefully (have you read the article?).What you are objecting to is not what #3 states.

I read it.  There was no evidence of a creator in any of his studies.  He could not have been convinced of a creator because of evidence of a creator.  He found none.  What he is actually claiming is that he didn't think the evidence of evolution is satisfactory.  This is a different thing than evidence of a creator. 

If you believe he found evidence of creationism, please point it out to us in any of this gentleman's studies and let's discuss it.